Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

The latest TAC tugging at heart strings ad...

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Bamm-Bamm, Feb 21, 2008.

  1. Firstly let me say that I sympathise with those who have lost loved ones due to motor vehicle accidents and they have my condolences. What I have a problem with is the amount of rhetoric and political bullshit about the "road toll" for what is a small number of deaths compared to other issues that affect society.

    Here are some examples...

    There were 2,101 deaths from suicide registered in 2005, similar to the number registered in the previous year (2,098). Nearly 80% of these were deaths of males.


    Over 2000 deaths!, when was the last time the government poured millions upon millions of dollars into this issue?

    5% of all deaths (approximately 19,000 deaths) were due to tobacco smoking in 1998.


    19,000 deaths...and the government are making money on it, what a caring sharing bunch

    * Alcohol is the second largest cause of drug-related deaths and hospitalisations in Australia (after tobacco) (AIHW, 2005a).
    * Alcohol is the main cause of deaths on Australian roads. In 1998, over 2,000 deaths of the total 7,000 deaths of persons under 65 years, were related to alcohol (Ridolfo and Stevenson, 1998).
    * In 2004, the age standardised rate for male deaths due to alcoholic liver disease as the underlying cause was 5.5 per 100,000, compared with 1.5 per 100,000 for females (ABS 2006b).
    * In 2004, the age standardised rate for male deaths with mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol as the underlying cause was 1.9 per 100,000, compared with 0.4 per 100,000 for females (ABS 2006b).


    and yet again another legal drug that kills thousands but the government make alot of money off of...hmm I'm spotting a pattern here

    # n 2004, there were 569 deaths of children aged 1-14 years. The death rate for children was 15 per 100,000 children (footnote 8) (ABS 2006c).
    # Of the total deaths of children aged 1-14 years, 60% were male and 40% were female resulting in death rates of 18 per 100,000 boys and 13 per 100,000 girls, respectively (ABS 2006c).
    # The difference between death rates for boys and girls aged 1-14 years has been decreasing since the 1980s (AIHW 2005a).
    # The major causes of death in children were from external causes (36%), cancer (19%), and diseases of the nervous system (11%) (ABS 2006c).
    # External causes of death among children included traffic accidents (15% of total deaths) and accidental drowning (7% of total deaths) (ABS 2006c).
    # Assault accounted for 9% of childhood deaths between 1999 and 2003 (128 childhood deaths). Of these deaths, two thirds (65%) occurred for children aged under five years (ABS 2005a).


    deaths of children...hmm when was the last time I saw any TV ad's about that?...when did the government department that looks after these issues sponsor Collingwood?

    Now admittedly some of those statistics are a few years old but they are still valid...

    Why don't we concentrate on something other than the "road toll" for a change, driving a vehicle is never going to be risk free, there will never be 0 road deaths, the fact that there are more cars on the road, more k's travelled, even more stringent enforcement and yet the level remains static means that perhaps different methods are needed.

    "Road Safety" used to mean something before it was hijacked by those with a vested interest, the camera makers and operators, the government funded researchers, the vocal dickheads like Harold Scruby...I would love to know EXACTLY how much money is spent on studies, focus groups, TAC advertising and enforcement to save what really are in the grand scheme of things a low number of lives.

    There are many other tragic deaths that get little to no attention...perhaps there is limited opportunity for political grandstanding in these other issues?
  2. Well you're right.

    Copy paste your post into a letter to your local parliamentary representative, outlining your concerns about tax-payer's money being wasted on frivolous road safety initiatives, when there are much more needy [but less profitable via fine return] areas in the community.

    CC your state news networks and newspaper journalists.
  3. How dare you actually read the statistics! Your suppose to comply with main stream media and dare not question the enlightened leadership community!
  4. doublethink
  5. I'm with you Bamm Bamm, for the relatively small amount of deaths per year, it does receive and extraordinary amount of attention. Yet there's still a million retards on the road.
  6. There are lots of campaigns around regarding

    1. Alcohol consumption (And Rudd has just started up again on this with supposedly a big push for education reform)
    2. Smoking has always had lots of money poured into it.
    3. Heart disease (diet and exercise) is making a resurgence after a few years off. The biggest drop in the past was the loss of the Life: Be in it campaign of the 70's and 80's. It also is coming back.
    4. Drugs advertising has its ups and downs but isn't really ever far away.
    5. Advertising for kids helpline and beyond blue and other depression and suicide type support services keeps popping up.
    6. Cancer - the biggest ones have been around for a while - the slip/slop/slap ads, womens stuff like breast screening and the cervical cancer vaccinations - even mens prostate stuff occasionally gets tv time, but most of the 'budget' goes into the support system like the GP's and so on.

    A lot of them are a lot less visible that the road 'safety' thing, but they are still all there.
  7. Isn't one death too many? Road fatalities are preventable purely by way of road users doing the right thing.

    Let me give you some statistics (especially for those who think speed doesn't kill);

    If a pedestrian is hit at 60kph, 90% chance of fatality,
    at 40kph, 30%
    at 30kph, only 10%.

    Pretty simple mathematics, the faster you go, the more carnage you cause. No driver or rider will care when they speed when they make it home without getting booked or stacking.

    But think of those who have come off, especially those who do hit and kill someone, two years of hell going through the courts, the prospect of imprisonment along with public shaming, possible loss of job and other stresses it would cause. Would you still choose to ignore the rules that some do knowing it could easily happen to you then next time you head out?

    Those with half a brain and a concience would not.
  8. This is an admirable idea Hubie, but neglects two things:

    1. Human foibles - the act of driving a vehicle involves lots of decision making as well as mechanical skill. We all make mistakes. This is why we have seatbelts, helmets and airbags - noone tries to crash a vehicle! Nor does everyone have all the skills all the time - oil spills, gravel and black ice are great examples of where you can take lots or care, and yet you could still end up dead.
    2. In the context of money spent elsewhere that started this thread, you could say the same thing about alcohol related deaths, smoking or anything else. They could all be prevented by people 'doing the right thing'. Don't smoke, and you won't get a smoking related death - hardly rocket science.
  9. This was exactly my point. And as far as gravel, oil spills etc, an observant driver would take the required action to account for this in his/her driving plan.
  10. I'd much rather a better driver education system, than millions spent on emotional adverts for TV.

    Scaring people into driving "better" doesn't work, and it hasn't worked.

    Comments like "this is why you get snapped with a speeding fine" doesn't really help when it's shown that around 97% of accidents do not involve any vehicle exceeding the speed limit at all.

    Yes, fatalities are tragic and horrible. Let's get the focus right and targetted at the problem areas now, please.

    Start teaching people that missing their turn-off doesn't give them the right to stop and reverse up the freeway, or throw a U-turn in the most dangerous of locations, or drive up the wrong side of a divided road against the traffic flow to cross the divider before the oncoming traffic reaches them. Start teaching people to perform proper shoulder checks before pulling out or changing lanes. Explain to them the reasons why.

    Explain to people the reasons why doing 60kph through a street crowded with pedestrians is a bad idea.

    Still, there's no accounting for stupidity. I've been vehicles where people have done stupid things. Quite often it simply came down to misplaced bravado and a total lack of concern for the danger that some action might cause, and a total lack of care in general.

    I do NOT believe that necessarily exceeding some speed limit warrants removing some individual from the road. A few of my riding buddies (5 in the last few months in fact in 4 separate incidents) have been taken out by people performing U-turns in extremely dangerous locations just as my friends rounded a corner, all because the car driver didn't want to drive further up the road to a more appropriate location. No one was speeding, but thousands of dollars of damage, and broken bones and long hospital times was the result. In all cases the drivers got off with a 1 point offense for performing a dangerous U-turn.

    That's f*cked. Meanwhile, someone's driving down an empty highway with no pedestrians at 25kph over and hurting no one, and their license is gone without hurting or really endangering anyone.

    The whole myopic single-minded focus on the WRONG reasons in these ads for why people are being killed is totally irresponsible. Seems to me that a LOT of time is being spent trying to fool the public into accepting that the government wants to target revenue raising offences, rather than really tackle the issues of poor driver education that is directly contributing to the road toll far more than they're prepared to admit.
  11. So too is heart disease.

    That's simply not true. Plenty of people who were doing the "right thing" were still killed.

    The road toll last year was around 330 here in Vic. We rack up that number of deaths every 2 to 3 days by all causes. Don't believe me? Then get out the Herald-Sun and go to the death notices and count the summary. Each day there are over 100 people's names listed there.

    The road toll is an emotive motherhood issue. It's easy to jump on and the likes of TAC have self serving interests. So too does MUARC, speed camera manufacturers and, erm, traffic police.

    The OP's post that references heaps of data highlights the disapproportional amount of resources that goes into road safety and police enforcement.

    Finally, these figures that you spout at us, are they from the same discredited source that claims that for every x km/h over the speed limit that you travel at, your risk of crashing doubles?

    When they start putting realistic speed limits on our freeways maybe then people can take, at face value, the hype over "speed kills". Until then it will be seen nothing more than a grab for money, particularly on roads like the Hume and Geelong freeways which have artificially low limits.
  12. This was exactly my point - humans are renouned for not making the correct decision every time. It is endemic to our physiology. No matter how hard you try, you won't get a zero road toll - not while we have humans in control of vehicles and pedestrians free to walk on the roads.
  13. I ignore these ads because they just dont work by focussing on only one aspect. Usually speed. There is never a mention of poor road design, poor placement of roadside furniture and rarely a mention of someone doing a dipsh!t thing like a U-turn without looking.

    The act of operating a mechanical beast is dangerous and so is the act of being in an area where these beast are :shock:

    In other words we all carry some risk and responsability. Why dont the ads explain that instead of flogging the speeding mantra :mad:
  14. salient points extracted here. This has been done for smoking and drinking and safe sex in schools for bloody ages, and yet we still have huge numbers of people binge drinking, smoking and doing weird between the sheets stuff in massive numbers, even as adults.

    Talking to people doesn't work, explaining things doesn't work, shock advertising doesn't work - is there anything left that leaves people in the loop? The only way out seems to be to ban alcohol, smoking and human control of motor vehicles and guns.
  15. a little self fulfilling perhaps? Seems to be a lot of the American "everyone else's fault, I don't have to look after myself" behavioural disposition going around. You've only got to look at drivers shouting at slow cyclists on their way to the next red light, people cutting one another off and all the pointless 'sorry waves' and so on to see that they just don't care - in other words, people are familiar with the risk aspect - they just see it as someone elses at all times, which is why they don't need to indicate or look before changing lanes.

    Road design and placement of obstacles isn't really a problem of driving - it is a problem of what happens once the incident starts taking place. Obviously you can (and we did have) rocky one lane cart tracks in the past, and people dealt with them just fine. Add more people and a worsening attitude towards your neighbour, and now we get all the fireworks that we do.
  16. Flux's response was the most considered.

    Bamm-Bamm, these ads are targeted at young males, between the ages of 18 and 24 who account for, IIRC, 25% of all fatal accidents on Victorian roads. I'd hazard a guess that of those, a large proportion are speed and skill related (combo of the two, too fast for available knowledge).

    Still, this fascination with speed is disturbing. But then what else do they do? Put more police on the road you say. Start targeting problem groups and poor driver/rider behaviour.

    But when they do (like last weekend in the Spurs) everyone complains that they're being targeted. But if riders make up 13% of all road deaths but on 3% of all road users, then we are a problem group.

    Lots of people like to drive fast and we don't like it when we are told we can't. Unfortunately, for many of us, our perceived skills don't match our real skills and we can rapidly exceed our abilities.
  17. Agreed, to a point. The thing is that the whole safe-sex, smoking harms you, etc, etc, has and does decrease the incidence of people engaging in such. Doesn't stop it, I agree, but it gives people pause.

    My main ire is with the focus on the wrong areas of driver education and enforcement. When 97% of accidents don't involve a speeding vehicle, and likely of the 3% that do, you could probably guess that at least half of those were caused by the vehicle not speeding doing something stupid, then there's an enourmous area in which correctly targetted education can have some impact.

    Even if it halves the number of people doing U-turns, pulling out without looking, and so on, (in rough step with halving the number of people smoking), then that's saved 180+ lives.

    Right now, today, even if nobody sped ever, then we'd have saved maybe 5 lives per year in Victoria.

    When is the govt. going to focus on the areas that actually are the major factors in road injuries and deaths?

    Unlike spending money on anti-smoking, breast cancer, prostate cancer screening, and so on, those areas are actually the ones that people are dying from in large numbers. In the case of "speed kills" (which it does if it's high enough in an inappropriate location not necessarily dictated by any particular number) that's NOT the area that's killing the vast majority of road users.
  18. Mate can you type in plainer English as I don't understand your point of view.
    Are you with me or against me?
  19. Make me wonder if the move by the Brits to introduce mandatory vehicle speed limiting (and postulated for bikes here I believe) will provide a definitive answer to the first, leading to a change in the latter. It may actually be good for us to have this brought in for a year - except that we'd never get rid of it again if it was proved useless.
  20. I agree with you

    Mostly :p :LOL: